Bob Jones University Admits Racist Past; Repents

No comment

I prefer not to make a statement either way because I do not have the time or space to make a proper response. Anything less will be misunderstood and misconstrued. Please accept my statements without prejudice. Thank you.

 

I have not seen anyone on this board who felt or expressed that.

All I have done is pointed out that the racist practice BJU repented and apologized for was the admissions policy, not the dating policy. That was clearly stated in the story you linked to at the start of this thread swaimj. Read your own link.

No one on this board has said they were not wrong, no one has said they should not have repented.

All I expressed was my view that the dating policy, while not scriptural, was also not, IMHO, racist.

I realize many of you disagree with me on that, but using the dictionary definition of racism posted on this thread I feel you have failed to make any case that the policy was racist.

No one on this board, lest of all me or paidagogos has argued that it was not wrong or should not have been changed.

Where I believe you have been led astray by the winds of political correctness swaimj is in labeling an opinion contrary to your own as racist when it is in fact not.

rbell, no one has rationalized or excused this belief or behavior. All I have done is shown a basic level of tolerance for a recognized interpretation that is contrary that you and I share.

Everyone who does not agree with you is not racist or of the devil. It is possible for Bible believing, saved by grace Christians to disagree and both still have valid relationships with Christ. When we throw words like "racist" around when they don't really apply we feed the intolerance that surrounds us. We stop arguing our point with information and facts and begin name calling, which was pretty close to my original point.

 

Well, after ridiculing certain interpretations of the Bible, you said that such interpretations need to be rejected and that you are glad that BJU has done so. That would certainly give a casual reader the impression that BJU had accepted such beliefs in the past and that their recent apology indicated a new stance toward such beliefs. And that would be slanderous unless it was actually the case at BJU.

 

Let's pretend that he does.

Let's all pretend that paidagagos agrees with the old interpretation of Acts 17 and, furthermore, that he believes in the curse of Ham and, as additional ballast, he suspects that the evolutionary scientists may have a point and the Negro is actually of a different origin than the Caucasian--still human, mind you; still the object of redemptive grace, but only remotely related to the white humans.

Shoot, let's go ahead and throw in a pretense that he once loaned a copy of Dabney's Defense of Virginia to a teenaged girl and that he studied German in high school.

Now that we have made him into a perfect monster, we are ready to ask the question that looms ominously before us: How would this affect the cogency of his points?

And if we can't see any effect at all, then we have to wonder whether the question about his secret race-hatred isn't intended to "poison the well" and derail intelligent conversation.

 

If we are so wrong headed and our judgment is clouded by political correctness, please tell us how a dating policy does not allow people of mixed race to date is NOT racist.

 

Accuracy?

It appears that you may be confusing Paidagogos and Pipedude. Furthermore, I see no logical reason why one's personal viewpoint is a necessity in a fair and balanced debate of issues. I can understand and see both sides of the argument. The person who is fair and rational can set aside his own biases and let his mind control his emotions. At least, that's the way I always thought it was supposed to be. :smilewinkgrin:

 

OK, I really think it should be the other way around, I think you need to prove it is racist, but for the sake of argument I will. The previous quote of the dictionary definition of racism was twofold:

This definition was posted by you go2church back on post #35(page 4) Do you still believe this definition?

If you do show me how the dating prohibition favor's one race as inferior or superior to any other. The dating ban was enforced equally on all races and was in fact a rule of the University before black students were admitted. There was no prejudice or discrimination based on race, it was enforced equally on all students regardless of their race. Only the race of the third party the individual student wished to date was brought into play, the race of the student did not matter at all.

So according to the dictionary definition of racism that you posted I do not think the dating ban is racist. It may be wrong, sinful, unbiblical or whatever, but it is not racist, it does not favor one race over any other.

go2church, I nor anyone else on this thread has said your judgment as to the correctness of the policy is in question, only your labeling of it as racist. Racist is a very decisive, hate filled term that people love to use to condemn opposing opinions when they don't want to argue the facts and I believe we should avoid using it when it does not apply.

 

Swaimj, what difference does it make what Paidagogo or Pipedude, or I for that matter believe about the interpretation of this passage. Surely your not suggesting that the only valid interpretation is your own. I don't know that any of us disagree with you on this particular passage but I am sure there are other passages where we do disagree. I have not found anyone I could agree with on everything yet.

 

Follow a consistent logic

Well, what about proscribing that guys cannot date guys and girls cannot date girls? Does limiting marriage as between a man and a woman make one sexist?

According to the definitions offered so far, racism of necessity embodies an idea of superiority and inferiority, yet no one has convincingly shown that opposing miscegenation is claiming superiority. Can you logically make the connection? Because they held a largely Southern worldview, I can remember when the black middle class (e.g. teachers, preachers, small business owners, etc.) was generally opposed to miscegenation. Did this make them racist?

Sociologically, the argument is against miscegenation. The tendency of humans to marry within their own sociological groups encompassing such factors as tribe, race, religion, class, etc. is demonstrable from cultures worldwide. Only the politically correct philosophy of diversity has changed this.

A few years ago, I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I think, bemoaning that black students were congregating to themselves on large university campuses. In the beginning, the push was to achieve integration of white facilities with no blacks barred from white dorms, frats, programs, etc. The article observed that African-American university students were now demanding their own dorms, frats, and programs. It was reverse segregation. Now, is this racism?

 

I don't disagree with what BJ has done. I think the admissions policy was wrong and racist. For many years they could say they were simply following the laws of the state and therefore could not admit blacks. But they continued their racist admissions policies after the state was forced to change. It was racist, they changed it, they apologized. Thats all good.

The dating ban existed both before and after the admissions policy was changed. I also believe it was wrong. They changed it and that is good. I just don't think it was racist.

As far as Acts 17:26 which says:

IMHO, Paul is stating fact here that God divided the nations. I believe that God did this at the tower of Babel and introduced racial differences at the same time he confounded the languages. Because of racial and language differences the people of the world divided into tribes and separated themselves from one another geographically. There is no prohibition to the mixing of races or nations in Acts 17:26.

If Bob Jones Sn or any other preacher used this as the basis of their belief that the races should not intermarry then I think they are/were wrong. I do not however, think that just because they believe that they are racist. I have known many people from the generation that came before ours who believe that races should not intermarry. Some just believed it made marriage more difficult because the couple lacked common ground on cultural issues. Some believed it was wrong because it put pressure on the offspring who would not fit in well with either race. Some believed that the Bible forbade it. And some of these people were racist and believed the black man inferior, but all of them did not believe that. Most believed that men were men regardless of race, that we were all created equally in God's image, that we all were lost and separated from God and needed the redemptive grace of Christ. Most loved and showed compassion on all men and women regardless of race.

I guess the heart of my argument and offense is this, I believe that it is possible to believe that the intermarrying of the races is wrong without being racist.

Where I live today the primary minority group is Native American. And the primary objection to interracial marriage is Native American parents who don't want their sons and daughters to marry outside of their tribe. They see their bloodlines mixed and their culture disappearing and they are fighting to preserve it. I don't think they are right. I think they can preserve their culture and pass on their traditions to their mixed race offspring, but I don't think they are racist for trying to keep their traditions alive.

 

This may be the heart of our disagreement. I do not believe the Jim Crow laws were racist. I believe they were bad laws and I believe that the enforcement of those laws was racist. I believe that racists took those bad laws and created a racist system, but I believe the laws themselves, while bad were racially neutral.

The idea of slavery could be viewed the same way. Slavery in and of itself is not necessarily racist. The slavery of Jesus' day was not based on race and the slavery that exists in Africa today is not based on race (In some cases it is based on tribal affiliation but more often is based on religion) The slavery that existed in the American south was racially based and racist, but all slavery is not.

I don't disagree with what BJ has done. They apologized for their racist admissions policy, that's great. They also changed their dating rule which is also good.

 

SwaimJ

I admire your staunch defense of your position against racism of any kind.

I thank you for that.

God bless.

 

Why else would one not allow intermarrying/ dating except that on some level you think yourself to be superior or inferior in some way? And if you could argue that it is not because of the superior/ inferior thinking, how is seperating or keeping someone seperate because they have a different skin color or come from a different culture not racist?

Note: racism is not color blind, people of color are just as capable of being racist

Just wanting to be with people of your "own kind" is racist. Even if those participating in such practices don't think so. On some level there exists the thinking of superiority (or inferiority) firmly in play. Bob Jones University participated in this practice, they did so across the board to appear non-racist, but at its core, it was (is) a racist policy. They have rightly stopped the policy and repented of this sin carried out in an institutional manner which required an institutional apology.

 

The thread is getting pretty tangled up. As paidagagos said, now you're even losing track of whom to use the ad hominem argument against. But, just to remind you, it is he. I never refused to state my own position.

But lets try to get this slander thing out of the way. I did not question anything you said about BJU and Acts 17. I questioned what you said about BJU and the mark of Cain and the curse of Canaan. (Post #67 above)

Your replies now have avoided mentioning the mark of Cain and the curse of Canaan. Since you are definitely one of the most level headed and insightful people on the BB (I'm including you in a group of about ten), I take these recent omissions as a deliberate tacit agreement that BJU should not be associated with the doctrines you were ridiculing in post #67 above.

So, unless you contest that statement, we can consider that earlier post an unfortunate juxtaposition of elements that could give a wrong impression to the casual reader. Hey, it could happen to anybody.

 

Well there are several reasons, none of which I particularly agree with but you could do this because:

1. You believe in the particular intrepreation of Acts 17:25 that was discussed earlier.
2. You believe that interacial couples create unnatural pressures on their children as they feel isolated from other children.
3. You believe that your particular racial and cultural background is dissappearing and you are fighting this assimilation.
4. You feel that couples who share the same cultural and racial background have more in common with each other and are therefore more compatible as husband as wife.

You don't have to believe any race superior or inferior, you just recognize that they are different.

If the desire to be with people that look like you do is racist then you have to define every human on the planet as racist to some degree. When people have complete freedom to live and associate with whoever they please they still band together by race more often than not. Go to church Sunday. We are all free to go to any church we choose, yet how many reflect a racial balance. Oh, I know some do, but are they the majority? Let's take our President Elect's home church. The city of Chicago is 42% white and 37% black. Do you think Rev Wright's congregation this Sunday will be 42% white? Do you think that makes his congregation racist?

 

I have no doubt that the church as contributed to the continued separation that happens every Sunday morning. It is unfortunate and I pray that it won't continue.

I don't know all the sociological reasons behind the situation you point out with people going to be around the people that they do, but I know not allowing others to make that choice for themselves is racist, which is what Bob Jones University did. Intentionally avoiding someone because of their skin color is racist.

As followers of Jesus we are to strive to live as kingdom citizens without race or prejudiced. We are not always successful, but that is to be the goal - everyone is welcome, everyone is equal. Anything short of that may not reach the technical definition of racism, but it reaches the definition of sin and should not find a resting place in the life of a follower of Jesus.